
EW 



HOLLINGER 

pH8.5 

MILL RUN F3-1543 



NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 



SPEECH 



OP 



:)■ 



HON. A; Gr BROWN, OF MISSISSIPPI, 



'X' ' 



SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUARY 24, 1854. 



The Senate having under consideration the bill 
to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kan- 
sas — 

Mr. BROWN said: 

Air. Pkksidevt: It has been my determination, 
from the beginning of tiiis discussion, not to par- 
tici|iate in it to any considerable extent, and i am 
not now about to depart from that determination. 
I will occupy the floor but a few minutes; and 
Senators who desire to speak may be assured that 
they will have an opportunity of doing so this 
evening, if they clioose. 

There are one or two points in the bill on 
which I will present my views briefly} and there 
are two or three topics involved incidenially in 
the debate to which 1 will address a remark or 
two, and ihen I shall have done. 

The bill proposes to annul, or, in stronger 
phrase, to repeal, the Missouri compromise; and 
to this extent it meets my cordial approbation. 

I am not the advocate of tins refieal because of 
any confident expectation that slavery is ever to 
find a resting place in these Te>riti:ries. Slavery 
may or may not go there. The inclination of my 
mind is that it never will. But this is a topic not 
to be discussed here, and therefore 1 pass it by 
■without further remark. 

The Alissouri compromise ought to be annulled 
or repealed, because it has been, from the begin- 
ning, without authority under the Constitution. 
For more than thirty years this legislation has 
stood upon the statute-book, a blot upon its jus- 
tice, and a mockery of the Constitution, which it 
violates. 

All the arguments against the constitutionality 
of the Wilmot proviso stand with equal force 
against the constitutionality of the Missouri com- 
promise. It is needless for me to argue that, if 
Congress had no power under the Constitution to 
exclude slavery from the territories acfjuired from 
Mexico, it had none to exclude it from those ac- 
quired from France; or, to state the proposition 
a little different, if Congress has no power to es- 
tablish an arbitrary line and assert its constitu- ' 



tional power over slavery on one side of it, it has 
none to establish it and assert its power on the 
other side. 

If Congress had the power in 1820 to exclude 
slavery from all the territory north of 36^^ 30', II 
had the same power in 1850 to exclude it from all 
the territory south of that line. And, per contm, 
' if it did not have the power to exclude it south Df 
the line in 1850, then it did not have thepowerlh' 
I 1830 to exclude it north of the line. 
j The venerable Senator from Michigan [Mr. 
I Cass] deserves great credit for his masterly efforts 
; to correct a wide-spread, and, at the North, almost 
universal error, on this point. Thousands 1 know 
I there are who date their convictions on this sub- 
ject from the delivery of the great speech of that 
j Senator, in which he reviewed with so much 
I power the arguments to sustain the proviso. I 
do the Senator no more than justice, when I say 
i his arguments have never been answered — like 
' fine gold, they have grown brighter as they have 
been rubbed. 

j As a friend of the Constitution, I thank the 
' Senator for his eflbrts in this behalf. He proved 
' the unconstitutionality of the proviso; and in 
I doing that, he established beyond dispute the 
unconstitutionality of the Missouri compromise. 
For, I repeat, Congress had no more power to ex- 
i chide slavery north of 360 30' in 1820 tha>i it had 
! to exclude it south of that line in 1850. 

But it has been said that the Missouri compro- 
mise is a contract — the eloquen t Senator from Mas- 
sachusetts used the stronger term — he called it a 
compact; and on this ground, he and others have 
undertaken to defend it. It was neither the one 
thing nor the other. It was not a contract, nor 
was it a compact. If it was a contract, who were 
the parties to it? To make a valid contract, th' re 
must be parties able to contract, willing u con- 
tract, and they must actually have contracted. I 
must go further, and say, there must be something 
given on one side, and something received on the 
other. In all, every one of these esisentials, the 
transaction before us is deficient. I s^iould under- 



/ 



C- 



^J^ 



^\ 



take to maintain by inefrasible proof, if I had 
engaged to discuss this question thorouglily, first, 
that tiiere were no contracting parties; second, 
that at least one of those whom you claim as a i 
party had no will to contract, and did not contract; 
and tliird, that no consideration passed from one 
party to the other, whereby the contract, if made, 
was rendered binding. 1 

Shall it be contended, furtlier, that Missouri j 
was a party to this pretended contract? It has 
already been said Missouri was admitted into , 
the Union as a slave Slate, on condition that ' 
slavery should be forever prohibited north of 36° > 
30'; and the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Shmker] declared with .great bitterness that thej 
South, with the consideration in her pocket, now \ 
comes forward to repudiate the contract. Sir, had , 
liot Missouri the right, the constitutional right, 
to come into the Union with or without slaveryi, j 
as she, in her own written constitution, should , 
prescribe.' I have thought that even rampant 
fanaticism did not deny this. Then how could 
vou, in derogation of her rights under the Consti- 
tution, demand of Missouri a price for her admis- 
sion into the Union.' 

But, sir, allowing that Missouri undertook to 
buy her way into the Union — an admission that 
can only be made for the snke of the argument — 
and that for this purpose she bargained for the 
exclusion of slavery in perpetuity from all terri- 
tory north of 3GC 30', what does it amount to.' 
Nothing; absolutely nothing. Missouri had juris- 
diction within her limits, and not one inch beyond. 
She had no right to buy an advantage or a privi- 
lege for herself by surrendering that wliich did 
r.ojt belong to her. As well might the tenant or 
rightful owner of a house bargain with a robber, 
that if he would let him alone, he might plunder 
his neighbors with impunity. If he bought his 
own peace, well ; but certainly he could impose no 
obligation on his neighbors to submit to the plun- 
dering. 

If we put this transaction on the basis of con- 
tract between the North and the South, it is not 
more capable of defense. Here you have to create 
jiarties, ideal parties, before you commence the 
bargain. To say this is a contract between the 
North and the South, is to set up in the imagin- 
ation things that do not exist in fact. There is no 
separate North, no separate South — has not been, 
and I hope never will be. We are but one, and 
it takes two to make a contract. If we had a 
Northern Union and a Southern Union, the two 
might contract. But, as we are but one, the first 
great essential to a binding contract is wanting, to 
wit: parties capable of contracting. 

I do not know that I can better conclude what 
I have to say on this point than by introducing 
an extract from a speech delivered by myself on 
this s/tibject in the House, June 3, 1848. It will 
be fa^nd at page G4.5, Appendix to the Congres- 
sional Globe, of that year. I said: 

" We sliall be told, that by the act ofM.arch 6, 1820, and 
the ieveral succeeditij; acts adniitiing Missouri into the ■ 
irn*)n, commonly called the Missouri compromise, the , 
povi^f^r in Compress to a limited e.\tent, to exclude slavery 
Horn VTcrrilory, was conceded. The argument is neither [ 
just iioVviund ; but its introduction here gives me an op- i 
portunity^which f eagerly embrace, of expressing my opin- 
ions of that\cnmpromise. It has been the theme oi^ many , 
eloquent iKvAangues ; and of all the thousand orators who i 
have thrown fesarlands on the brow of its great author, or 1 
strewn his palh^way with richest flowers, none have apos- i 



trophised more eloquently than those whose theme has been 
(this far-famed Missouri compromise." 

You will observe that in this speech I fell into 
a very common error, or, at least, what is now 
claimed to be an error, of attributing the author- 
ship of the Missouri compromise to Mr. Clay. I 
proceeded: 

"But, notwithstanding this, it stands out 'a fungus, an 
e.xerescence, a political monstrosity.' It was tlie first, 
greatest, and most fatal error in our legislation on the sub- 
ject nf slavery. It violated at once the rights of one half 
the Union, and flagrantly outraged the Federal Constitution. 
It undertook to abrogate the constitutional privileges of one 
lialf of the States, and, without any adequate or sufficient 
consideration , to surrender the rights of every slaveholder in 
the Union. The compromise has been called a contract. 
But a contract, to be binding, must be mutual in its obliga- 
tions; there must be something given on one side, and 
something received on the other. By this compromise — 
this misnamed contract — the slave Stalas irave up their right 
of settlement north of the parallel 36° 30'; but the non- 
slaveholding States did not surrender their right to settle 
south of that line. The free States have all the rights they 
ever had. The South gave up everything, and received 
nothing. North of 36° .30' no slaveholder darego with his 
slaves; south every northern man may settle with whatever 
cliattels he possesses. Tne compromise is wantingin all the 
elements of mutuality which render a compact binding, and 
is therefore void. This Thirtieth Congress has no riglit to 
surrender, by gift or barter, the political rightsof onehalf of 
the Confederacy, or even one State of the Union ; and yet 
this Congress has all the constitutional powers that be- 
longed to the Sixteenth Congress, which enacted the com- 
promise." 

I pass from this subject to the consideration o 
the amendment offered by the mover of the bill, 
[Mr. Douglas,] and now, by the vote of the Sen- 
ate, become a part of the bill itself. The phrase- 
ology is not such as I would have chosen, and yet, 
having scrutinized it, I am willing to sanction it; 
indeed, I have sanctioned it by my vote. If it 
had suited the purposes of others to allow it to 
stand without comment, it would have suited mine. 
But I will not sit still, and allow an interpretation 
to be given to words that have received the sanc- 
'' tion of my vote, altogether at variance with what 
' I intended when I gave the vote. From day to 
day we have heard Senators, in terms more or 
j less distinct, declare, without limitation, that this 
bill gives the people of the Territories the right to 
exclude slavery. In plain English, that it recog- 
nizes the doctrine of '"squatter sovereignty," as 
I this new theory has been termed. 1 do not think 
so, and if I did, I would withhold from the bill the 
sanction of nay vote. I utterly deny and repudiate 
; this whole doctrine of squatter sovereignty. But, 
before I proceed to an examination of it, I must 
[lause to consider another feature embodied in 
the amendment proposed by the honorable Sena- 
tor, the mover of this bill. 

' The amendment declares that the act of 1820, 
commonly called the Missouri compromise, is 
inconsistent with the legislation of 1850, known 
as the compromise of that year; and is, therefore, 
declared inoperative and void. Iff did not know 
the astuteness of the Senator who drew up this 
amendment, [Mr. Dougl.\s,J and how unlikely 
he would be to run into such an error, I should 
think there was an inaccuracy in deducing the 
conclusion that the legislation of 1820, in reference 
to one Territory, is inoperative and void, because it 
is inconsistent with the legislation of 1850, in re- 
ference to another Territory. It is very certain 
that the legislation of 1820, as regards the territory 
north of 30° 30', was inconsistent with the same 
legislation, as regards the territory south, and yet 



both stood, and have continued to stand, for thirty 
yet\rs^ind more. It is equally certain, that if Con- 
gress has the power to exclude slavery from the 
Territories, and the |inwer is simply permissive, 
and nut mamhitory, (as it certainly is not,) under 
the Consliiution, then Congress may exercise it in 
one place, and forlienr its exen-ise in another; and 
the failure to exercise it in N'tliraska, fcr example, 
would not render inoperative and void its exercise 
in Kansas. 

If the act of 18C0, that excluded slavery from 
all the territory north of llfiO 3U', was constitu- 
tional, it may stand, and it is lo(^ically inaccurate 
to say that it hecumes inoperative and void simply 
because the legislation of leifjU failed to exclude 
slavery south of that line. IJut if, on the other 
hand, the act of IS'JO was unconstitulioniil, and 
those of l>^'){) hrouijht hack the Government to its 
true constitutional position, then it would he logi- 
cally correct to say that the act of IHCO (lieing 
unconstitutional) is inconsistent with the acts of 
1650, (that have restored the Government to its 
true constitutional position,) and, therefore, the 
act of 1820 is inoperative and void. Inoperative 
and void, not because of its admittinjj; or excluding 
slavery, but inoperative and void liecause it is in- 
consistent with the restoration of the Government 
to its rightful constitutional position. 

I take it for granted, Mr. President, that the 
able and learned Senator [Mr. Douglas] meant 
what the language of his amendment implies, to 
wit: that the legislation of 18.")0 settled tiie great 
constitutional principle that Congress could not 
exclude slavery from a Territory; and that inas- 
much as the act of 1820 undertook to do that thing, 
it is in conflict with a great constitutional princi- 
ple, and , therefore, for that reason , it is inoperative 
and void. 

I may be mistaken in my reasoning — I may be 
mistaken in what is meant by the mover of this 
amendment. But there is one thing in which I am 
not mistaken — the arnendment declares the Mis- 
souri compromise inoperative and void. This is as 
it should be. It squares exactly with my notions 
long since expressed of the constitutional obliga- 
tions of the Government, and I will not quarrel 
with a good act, even though a bad reason may be 
given for its performance. 

I will not detain the Senate on points of so little i 
practical importance as this. The conclusion at 
which we arrive covers the practical issue, eflects 
the practical result, and whether we reach that con- 
clusion by a sound course of reasoning is a thing 
of little consequence to our constituents. I voted 
for tlie amendment, believing that the premises jus- 
tineti the conclusions. But, if I had tlionght other- 
Wise 1 should have voted as I did. The declara- 
tion ihtit the Missouri compromise is henceforth 
to become inoperative and void, comn^ends the 
measure to my warm and cordial support. 

1 pass to the consideration of another point, and 
in doing so I respectfully invoke the attention of 
the distinguished Senator from Michigan, [Mr. 
Cass.] That Senator is the acknowledired author 
of the doctrine known in common political par- 
lance as squatter sovereignty. From this doctrine 
I have always dissented, and I dissent from it to- 
day. Accustomed, as 1 have long been, to regard 
with reverence whatever emanates from that dis- 
tinguished and venerable Senator, and feeling, at 
all times, a painful reluctance to assume a position ^ 



at variance with him, 1 have, nevertheieeB, found 
myself constrained, after mature investigation, to 
conclude that on this point he is wrong. 

l-'roin what source, let me ask the Senator, does 
he derive the power, or the right of the peo[»ie of 
a Territory, to exclude slavery .- Conirress does not 
confer the power — that is certain. 'I'he Senator 
has made more arguments — and better ones — than 
any living statesman tr) prove that Congies.s has 
no right or power, .under the Con.Ntitution, to ex- 
clude slavery from aTerritory; and I shall not in- 
.sult the good sense of the Senate, or of the country, 
by proving, that if Congress does not itself pos- 
sess this power, it cannot confer it on anoiV.er. 
Congress cannot give w,'hat it has not got. Con- 
gress cannot reverse the whole order of nature, 
and make the creature greater than the creator. 
When the Senator proved that Congress had no 
power over slavery in the Territories, he proved, 
necessarily, that Congress could not confer this 
power on a Territorial Legislature — a Legislature 
which is, at best, but a thing of our creation — 
nor yet upon the people of a Territory; for, after 
all, these people have no existence as a political 
organization but by our act. 

If the nower is not conferred by Congress, 
whence do you derive it? The Senator from IVIich- 
igan has left us in no doubt as to the quarter from 
which he derives it. On a former occasion, and 
in a speech not now before me, but which I have 
in my mind's eye, the Senator said he derived the 
power from Almighty God. 

Mr. CASS. I do not wish to interrupt the 
Senator at all, because it is a matter of no sort of 
consequence, but I wish to say to him that I did 
not derive that power from Almighty God. I was 
asked whence 1 derived the power of government 
in the people.' and I answered that the right of 
government, not the right to exclude slavery, was 
derived from AlmiglUy God. 

Mr. BROWN. I suppose when the Senator 
said the right of government, without imjiosing a 
limitation, he meant, of course, to include the right 
to exclude slavery .' 

Mr. CASS. Of course. 

Mr. BROWN. I so understood the Senator. 
I understood him as deriving the power of self- 
government for the people directly from Heaven; 
and as the Senator imposed no limitation or re- 
striction on the power, 1 inferred, of course, that 
he meant to include the right over slavery, and 
the Senator says I was correct. I was justified, 
therefore, in saying that the Senator had derived 
this power from God. Not this single power, and 
it alone, but this along with other powers. 

Now, sir, if this be so, the conduct of this Gov- 
ernment has been most singular; and if the Senator 
will allow me, I will say, with the most perfect 
respect, that his own personal conduct needs ex- 
planation. If I am not mistaken in the antecedents 
of the Senator, some sixteen or twenty years of 
his now protracted and honorable life have been 
spent in the government of one of these Terri- 
tories, tie was commissioned to do so, not by 
Heaven, but by the President of the United States. 
The people whom he governed with so much abil- 
ity, and with such acknowledged advantage to 
them, were never consulted as to whether he 
should be their governor. The President commis- 
sioned him, and that was the end of it. All the 
people had to do was to receive him and to respect 



him aB their governor. When the Senator comes 
to reply, 1 shall be glail to learn from him how he 
justifies himself in talcing a man's commission to 
rule over a people who have authority direct from 
God himself to govern themselves ? It seems to | 
me, wilhoul explaiuition, that the Senator has , 
stood, according to his own theory, very much, 
like an usurper; and if I had not ihe greatest pos- 
sible veneration and respect for the Senator, I would 
say an usurper who had impiously interposed to 
■wrest from a people the greatest and best gift of 
Heaven— the right of self-government. 

If, as is contended, the people of a Territory j 
are gifted from Heaven with the right of self gov- [ 
ernment, by what authority do you habitually [ 
send men to rule over them? You appoint their i 
governors, and other executive officers, and re- 
move them at pleasure. You appoint judges to j 
expound their laws, and even these are not exempt 
from the power of removal. True, you allow i 
them, as a matter of special grace, to elect members j 
of their legislative council. But then, to sliowthe ! 
omnipotence of your power, you require them to 
send up their laws for approval here, and none are 1 
binding until approved by Congress. This very i 
bill now under discussion authorizes the President 
to appointgovernors, secretaries, judges, marshals, 
(tc.for these Territories; and it is very explicit 
in providing that all laws passed by the Terri- 
torial Legislature shall undergo the revision of 
Congress before they are binding. It does seem 
to me, Mr. President, if these people have been 
specially commissioned from Heaven to g^ivern 
themselves, we are guilty of an impious usurpa- 
tion, and become the rankest despots, when we 
exercise authority like this. I shall be glad to 
know of the Senator how we are to justify our- 
selves in thus assuming and exercising control 
over a people whom God has authorized to govern 
themselves? For be it remembered, the Senator 
has asserted that the people had the right of self- 
government unlimited and complete; and when 1 
so stated his position, as in his judgment to induce 
the impression, that he had asserted their power 
over slavery alnne, he corrected me, and said his 
assertion was the right of self-government— gov- 
ernment as to everything; slavery, of course, in- 
cluded. 

What I contend for is, that if the people have 
the rie:ht of self-government, as contended for by 
the Se'nator fronfiVlichigan, then you have no right 
to appoint officers to rule over them, nor exact 
thalthey shall send up theirlaws for your approval. ; 
And if they have not the sovereignty which enti- j 
ties them to appoint their own oHicers, and to pass j 
their own laws, independent of your supervision 
and dictation, then they have not that higher de- 
gree of sovereignty which entitles them to say 
what shall, and what shall not be property in a 
Territory inhnl)ited by them, and belonging to the 
States of this Union. 

Whatever the Senator's opinions may be, and 
I do not question his sincerity, the practical results 
of his action are these: The people, with all their 
Heaven-born sovereignty, have no right of self- 
government — of free and uncontrolled self-govern- 
j^ent — until they come to slavery, and then their 
power is as boundless as the universe, and as un- 
limited as God can make it. You appoint their 
officers Vv-ithout their approval, and remove them 
without their consent. You exercise the utmost 



vigilance over their legislation until it comes to 
slavery, and then you grant them the largest lib- 
erty. Why is this? Either it proceeds from a 
timidity that shrinks from a manly responsibility 
on this subject, which I cannot suspect, and there- 
fore will not charge; or else from a conviction that 
slavery is an institution accursed of Heaven; and 
that while your love for the Union will not allow 
you to stamp on it the seal of Heaven *s vengeance, 
you will withdraw from it all protection, and leave 
it to the tender mercies of all whose passions or 
prejudices m.ay lead them to make war upon it. 
1 Sir,l have I'lO fellowship with that sickly sen- 
■ timentality tliat speaks of slavery as a great moral 
evil, and is constantly praying for some safe and 
peticeful mode of getting nd of it I believe that 
slavery is of divine origin, and that it is a great 
moral, social, and political blessing— a blessing to 
the slave, and a blessing to the master. 1 am not 
going to elaborate this idea; it is of itself a theme 
for half a dozen speeches. But I undertake to say, 
that nowhere, in all Christendom, is there a higher 
degree of morality than in theslaveholding States. 
In^this respect the slaveholding States challenge a 
: comparison with their boastful sisters of freedom. 
I I risk nothing in saying that slavery operates as 
a check upon crime. I will tell you why. It 
equalizes white men, puts them on a level with one 
another, and represses thereby many of the evil 
I passions which rise up and drive men to madness 
j in communities where white men are not equal. 

Nowhere in this broad Union but in the sl.ave- 

i! holdins; States is there a living, breathing exem- 

i jilificution of the beautiful sentiment, that all men 

areequal. In the South all men are equal. I mean, 

, of course, whilemen; negroes are not men, v/itliia 

Ithe meaning of the Declaration. If they -were, 

Madison, and Jefferson, and Washington, all of 

j I whom lived and died slaveholders, never could 

have made it, for they never regarded negroes as 

their equals, in any respect. But men, white rr.en, 

the kind of men spoken of in the Declaration of 

Independence, are equal in the South, and they 

are so nowhere else. It is slavery that makes 

them so. 

In the South we have but one standard of social 
merit, and that is integrity. Poverty is no crime, 
and lalior is honorable. The poorest laborer, if he 
has preserved an unsullied reputation, is on asocial 
level with all his fellows. The wives and daugh- 
ters of our mechanics and the laboring men stand 
not an inch lower in the social scale than the wives 
and daughters of our governers, secretaries, and 
judges. It is not always so with you, and I will 
tell you why. The line that sepaiates menial from 
honorable labor with you is not marked by a caste 
or distinct color, as it is with us. In the South, 
as in the North, all the mechanic arts are trented 
as honorable, and they are not the less so because 
sometimes practiced by blacks. It may surprise 
our northern friends, but all the South will attest 
its truth, that nothing is more common in the 
South than to see the master and his slave work- 
ing together at the same trade. And the man who 
would breathe a suspicion that the master had sunk 
one hair's breadth in the social scale in conse- 
quence of this kind of contact would, by general 
consent, be written down an ass. 

But there are certain menial employments which 
belong exclusively to the negro — these furnish a 
field of labor that the white man never invades, or 



' \ 



5 



if he does, he is not tempted there by gain. Wliy, 
sir, it would tnkeyou longer to find a while nuin, 
in my Slate, who would hire liiniself outus a boot- 
black, or a white woman who would go to ser- 
vice as a chambermaid, tlian it took Cajilain Cook 
to sail around the world. For myself, in thirty 
years, I have never found a sinjile one. 

Would any man take his boot-black, would any 
lady take her chambermaid into companionship.' 
We do not in the South, for they are always ne- 
groes; Mechanics, over.seers, and lionest laborer.s, 
of every kind, are taken into comimnionship, and 
treated , in nil re.-^pects, as equals. It is their right, 
and no one thinks of denying it. 

I do not say that it is disreputable for white men 
and white women to ^o out to service and to per- 
form even tliese lower graden of labor. I]ut I say 
that with you, as with us, they lose their position 
in the social scale when they do it. With you it 
must be done by whites, and therefore the whiles 
lose position; with us this menial labor is per- 
formed by negroes, and the equality among the 
wiiites is preserved. 

If the Senator from Massacliusetts [Mr. Sum- 
ner] wants to see a specimen of that equality 
spoken of by Jelferson, in tlie Declaration of Inde- 

Seiulence, ami so much lauded by himself tlie other 
ay, let me advise him to come to Mississippi. 
We will there show him what he has never seen 
in Massachusetts, and what he never will see in a 
free State — a whole community standing on ajier- 
fect level, and not one of them the tithe of a hair's 
breadth higher in the social scale than another. 
This isequalily; this is social equality — the equal- 
ity lo ulucli all men were born, and whicli no man 
loses in a slave State but by dishonesty or im- 
morality of some sort. 

I wili not pause to consider the black man's 
condition in this country as contrasted with that 
of his fellows in his native home. There is enough 
in it to awaken our thoughts, and cause us seri- 
ously to inquire whether it is not possible, and 
even proliable, that God, in his providence, has 
brought the African.s from amidst the barbarism 
and cannibalism of their native jun£;le, and placed 
tlieir feet on these happy sliores, where, under tlie 
benign influence of our laws, they may learn 
morality and Christianity; and, in Heaven's own 
good time, return to lift the pall of darkness and 
death that has rested so long on their wretched 
country.' 

But enouffh of this. I did not intend to have 
spoken of the negro, or of his influence on the 
social condition of our country. We who own 
slaves are satisfied with our condition in every 
respect; and those who do notown them, we may 
hope, will in no way be made accountaljle for the 
sin we commit in holding them in bondage. 

Asking pardon for this digression, I come back, 
Mr. President, to the subject under discussion: 
The right of the people of a Territory to exclude 
slavery; or, in other words, to declare that not to 
be property in a Territory belonging to all the 
States, which is recognized as property by the 
United States, and held as property in fifteen States 
of this Union. It must beadmitted that the power 
which makes such a declaration, and maintains it, 
is invested with the very highest attributes of sov- 
ereignty — a sovereignty which the Government 
has not dared to exercise in theTerritories acquired 
from Mexico. 



The. Senator from Michigan, if I underHiand him, 
asserts the sovereignty of the people in the Territo- 
ries over properly in the Territories. I should like 
to know at what time tliis sovereignty attaches; 
does it go with the first man who enters the Ter- 
ritory, or must a hundred, or two litindred, or a 
thou.sand, have entered before this sovereignty at- 
taches? This is an im{iortaiit point; and 1 shall 
be glad to liave the Senator's views on it. We, 
who maintain the sovereignty of the States, have 
no difliculty in fixing the lime when the sover- 
eignty attaches. It attnches, as we think, at the 
moment when the Territory enters the Union as 
a Stale. Up to this time it resides in the States, 
or with the people of the States. With us there 
is no such thing as sovereignly in a Territory. 
A Territory is subordinate; she iins no voice here, 
and no vote in the other Inanch of Congress. She 
is not equal with the States. But, on the instant 
of her entry into the Union, she becomes equal — 
the sovereignty passes — and, within her limits, 
she may do whatever Virginia or Massachusetts 
may do within their limits. 

I'o admit the sovereignty of a Territory is to 
admit the existence of a State out of the Union. 
A State or sovereignty in the Union cannot treat 
with any foreign Power. The Constitution for- 
bids it. But a State or sovereignty out of the 
Union may treat; it may form alliances, and, if it 
choose, not only remain out of the Union, but at- 
tach itself to any foreign Power. Siqipose the 
"sovereign Territory" of Oregon should take a 
fancy to attach itself to Great Britain, I should 
like to know how my friend from Michigan would 
prevent it? It is useless to say this will not hap- 
|5en. The question as to whether it will or will 
not happen does not aflect the question of right. 
And besides, this is an age of progress, and we 
know not what a day may bring forth. 

If it suits the purposes of the Senator to an- 
swer, I should like to know to what point he car- 
ries his doctrine? Does he believe that the people 
of a Territory, even before the erection of a terri- 
torial government, such as we are now making for 
Kansas and Nebraska, have the right lo exclude 
slavery? 

Mr. CASS. Does the Senator wish me to ex- 
plain? 

Mr. BROWN. I should like an ansv/er now 
on the single point. 

Mr. CASS. I will answer the Senator in a very 
few words. I believe that Congress, from the re- 
' lation existing between them and the people of the 
Territories, and the necessity arising from that rela- 
tion, have a right to organize a government in a 
Territory; but 1 also believe that if we neglect this 
duty, as we did in the case of California, ihelaws 
of God give the community a right to establish a 
government fir them.'elves. 

Mr. BROWN. The Senator's answer does 
noi exactly meet my question, unless he means 
that a government thus established m!\y exclude 
slavery. If he does I am answered, and I dissent 
from the answer. 

1 admit that any people left without a govern- 
ment may make a government for themselves; 
that is to say, they may make such municipal 
regulations for the protection and security of life, 
liberty, and property as they may think best'. 
But these regulations must be consistent with the 
rights of the sovereisn. The Senator is correct 



6 



when he says the right to make this sort of gov- 
ernment arises out of the necessity of the case. 
But the right must not be carried further tlian may 
be justified by the necessity that brought it into 
being. Whatever is necessary to the protection 
of the people in their persons and property may 
be done. And now will the Senat;)r, or any one 
else, undertake to sliow that the exclusion of sla- 
very is at all necessary to the security of either 
persons or property in a Territory .' No one will 
pretend that it is. Its exclusion is not neces- 
sary to the existence of a temporary government; 
and being inconsistent with the rights of the sov- 
ereign, to wit, the States of the Union, it cannot be 
excluded by tlie usurpation of a power not granted 
by the Constitution, or justifieil by the tyrant's 
plea of necessity. 

The temporary government thus established, 
and resting solely on necessity, can exist only at 
the pleasure of the sovereign. When he appears 
and asserts his authority this temporary govern- 
ment must pass away. 

Suppose fifty Americans — and I care not if the 
number be more or less — are left on an island be- 
longing to Great Britain, uninhabited, and conse- 
quently without an existing government. That 
they may set up a government for themselves no 
one will deny. They may fashion it after ourown, 
if they choose. But if, at the end of a few years, the 
agents of the Q-ueen appear to assert the authority 
of the crown — will any one pretend that our Amer- 
icans can maintain their jurisdiction; must not their 
authority yield at once to the superior authority of 
the sovereign ? And so, I apprehend, it will be if 
possession is taken of territory belonging to these 
States. I Jf it is without a government, those taking 
possession may make a government; but when 
the States appear by their proper agents to assert 
their authority, the provisional government must 
give way. It can no more be maintained that pos- 
session may be taken of territory belonging to 
these States, and the citizens of the State excluded 
with their property, than it can be maintained that 
an island belonijing to Britain may be seized, and 
the Queen's subjects with their property excluded. 
If the Senator has only meant to assert the power 
of a people left withouta government tomakeone 
forthemselves commensurate with theirnecessities, 
I concur with him fully. But if he goes further 
than this, and asserts a sovereignty that rises above 
the authority of Congress, and puts the States, the 
rightful owners of the soil, at defiance, then I dis- 
sent. To this I never can agree. 

The period is well fixed in my mind, at which the 
right to exclude slavery from a territory attaches. 
It is wlien the Territory comes to form a State con- 
stitution for herself — and this she may not do, the 
precedents to the contrary notwithstanding, until 
she has the requisite population. The Constitu- 
tion has very wisely provided that each State 
shall be e)itilled to one member of Congress; that 
representation shall be apportioned among th-e 
States according to population; and to ascertain 
the population, it has provided for taking a cen- 
sus. Now, to admit a State without the requisite 
population to entitle her to a member, is a fraud 
upon the rights of other States, for it diminishes 
their political power; and to guess at the numlier 
of inhabitants, is a fraud on the Constitution, for 
the Constitution has directed you to take a census. 

A State coming into the Union in a proper way 



has the right to come in with or without slavery, 
as she chooses. This I admit, and 1 admit nothing 
more. Perhaps a very rigid adherence to the rights 
of all parties would require a State to be in the 
Union, and fully invested with sovereignty, before 
she undertook to exercise so important a power as 
the exclusion of slavery. As an original propo- 
sition, 1 would maintain this doctrine. But the 
point seems to have been yielded, and 1 will not 
insist on it now. 

To show how well I am sustained in the views 
I have so imperfectly expressed, I will read a few 
short extracts from the speeches of Mr. Calhoun 
and one or two others on the doctrine of squatter 
sovereignty. On the first of June, 184S, Mr. Cal- 
houn said: 

" There are tlirce questions involved in this entangled 
affair. Tlie firj^t is the power of Conntross to legislate upon 
this subject so as to prevent the slaveholding portion of the 
Union from emigrating with their property to any Territory. 
Tlie next qu"Stion is therightof the inhahilants of a Terri- 
tory to make a law excludi)i« tlie cilizcns of Ihcie Stales 
from cmi^ralitig thilher Willi tlieir property, and the third 
is tlie power of Congress to vest the people of a territory 
with that right." * » * "The territory 

IS OPEN TO ALL THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, 
AND IT MUST REMAIN OPEN, AND CANNOT BE CLOSED BUT 
BY THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY WHEN THEY COME TO 

FORM THEIR OWN CONSTITUTION, and then they can do as 
they please." 

On the 27th of June, 1848, Mr. Calhoun spoke 
at length on this subject. I read from his speech, 
at page 871 of the Appendix to the Congressional 
Globe.. Having disposed of the power of Con- 
gress over the subject, he said: 

"I HOW go one step further, and propose to show that 
neither the inhabitants of the Territories nor their Legis- 
latures, have any such right. If the Territories belong to 
the United States, if the ownership, dominion, and sover- 
eignly ovec them be in the Slates of the Union, then neither 
the iiihaliitantsof the Territories nor their Legisl.iturescan 
exercise any jiower but what is subordinate to them." * * 
" But if the reverse be true, if the dominion and sover- 
eignty over the Territories be in the inhabitants, * * * 
they might exclude whom they pleased, and what they 
pleased. But in that case, they would cease to be Ter- 
ritories of tlie United States the moment we acquired 
them and permitted them to be inhabited. The first half 
dozen of squatters would become the sovereigns, with full 
dominion and sovereignty over them." 

I forbear to read Mr. Calhoun's argument. It 
was like all that caine from him, full, complete, 
lucid, and convincing. 

On the IDth of July, 1848, the present Secretary 
of War, then a member of this body, spoke at 
length on the territorial question. I read from 
his speech, as I find it recorded at pages &08, 909, 
ar.d 910 of tl^^' Globe's Appendix for that year: 

" The various modes which have been proposed to ex- 
clude slaveholders from entering territory of the United 

I States with their property may be referred to three sources 
of power: the Federal Government, the territorial inhabit- 

I ants, and the law of the land anterior to its acquisition by 
the United States." 

\ After discussing at length the power of the Fed- 
eral Governineni over slavery in the Territories, 

1 and concluding that no authority for its exclusion 
was lodged in Congress, the speaker continued: 

" Many of the reasons and principles presented to estab- 
lish the absence of power in the Federal Government to 
exclude slavery from territory belonging to the United 

! Slates, bear with like force against the second class of opin- 
ions — that the power rests in the territorial inhabitants. In 
the unwearied search of those who, from the foundation of 
our Government, have sought in every quarter for the fount- 
ains of power by which the sovereignty of the States might 
be subnn iged, this, until recently, remained undiscovered." 
The Senator was neither unjust nor illiberal to- 
wards the early settlers in aTerritory. Hear him: 



"To the citizun who presses beyond the limit!) of civlli- 1 
zation to opRn tip to ciiltivnlioii niiil Hclilciiiuiit tlu! fnrcsi 
domain of tin,- United tiiiilcs, I Imvc nlwayn hi'i-ri willing 
to cxli'Mil |iroli'i'lii)ii nnd «iK'li pcculiiir adviiiitiiKiM ovir 
Other joint owfuTs of lln! coinnion Mliick iin ar« dm- to lln' 
eervici's lie has ihns rcniU'rvd to thu poniiiion inii-n-st. Iliil 
the civil rii;hls, (he poliiicnl priiiei|iU-s ot' our Uovcriiiiii'iil, 
are Mot to lit' iriuisrifrred to lliose who shull be lir.st in the 
race to reaeli ne\vlyaci|iiired pomiesnioiiit, or wlio shall by 
Bcoidenl he roiiiid upon tlieni.'* 

To show the conclusion reached by the speaker, 
I rend his own remarks: ; 

" I have thus presented my view of the three sources 
from wliieli it in claimed to draw (lie power to pnihiliit sla 
very in territory of the United Statin. From the eoiiKider 
aliens: pres^enled, my conclusion is, that it cannot properly 
be done in eillier of the modes proposed; thai, not heiiii! 
anion;; the delegated powers of the Federal li(:veriiinent,or 
necessary to the exereise ol'aiiy of its grants, CoiiL'ress can- 
not pass a law (tt lliat purpose; that the lerritorlal ii«v- 
ernnieiit is >ul)ordiiiate lo llie Federal (ioveriinient, from 
which it derives its aiithorily and support, and that neither 
peparately nor united can they invade the undelegated sov- > 
ereisnty of the States over their territory." 1 

To fortify my own jiosition, I might multiply 
authorilies liiie these almost indefinitely. It may 
besiidicient to sny, that so far as I know, no strict 
constriictiotiist in the South has ever yielded the 
point that the inhabitants of a Territory could 
exchuie slavery. All have stood upon the common 
ground that the |ieople, when they come to form 
a State constitution, beiiiij duly entitled by their 
numbers and position in the Government to make 
such an instrument, may, if they think proper, 
exclude slavery, and then its exclusion forms no \ 
just ground of complaint. i 

Justice, Mr. President, requires that I should, 
at this point, recur to a speech delivered by myself 
in the House of Representatives, on the 3d of 
June, 1848. It will oe found at page 648 of the 
Appendix to the Globe. I then said: 

"The people hold the Territories as tenants in common, 
and all, or any partofthem,may enter these Territories from 
any and all parts of the United States, and take with them 
their properly. They may enact laws for their personal 
protection and the preservation of their properly ; hut lliey 
cannot exclude others who come after them Ironi the pos- 
session and enjoyment of equal rii,'hts with themselves. i 

The first who enter a Territory cannot assume a sover- 
eignty which belongs to all. The spccilic exercise of sov- 
ercigiity over the question of slavery is held in abeyance 
until the people of the Territory ask admission into the 
Union as a State, according to the Constitution ; and being 
adinitled, the Slate becomes sovereign within her limits." 

I will not detain the Senate with a reproduction 
of arguments employed by me at that time. My 
consi.'stency is vindicated in what I have read. I 
summed up as follows: 

"The cimclusions, .Mr. Chairman, to which my own 
mind has arrived, on the several points involved, are briefly 
tJiese: That every citizen of the United States may go to 
the Territories and lake with him his properly, he it slaves, 
or any other description ol' properly. 'J'hat neither the 
United States Congress nor Territorial Legislature has any 
power or authority to exclude him ; and that the power of 
legislation, by whomsoever exercised in the Territories, 
whether by Congress or the Territorial Legislature, must 
be' exerted for the equal bimefit of all — for the southern 
slaveholder no less than for the northern dealer in dry 
goods." 

It will be seen, Mr. President, that I treated the 
subject then as I do now. 1 asserted then, as I 
assert to-day, that whoever legislates for the Ter- 
ritories, whether it be Congress or a territorial 
Legislature, is as much bound to give protection to 
my property as to the property of any one else. 
If the Constitution is to be ouserved , and our rights 
under it are equal, I want to know by what other 
rule we can be governed .' Shall the Senator from 
Ohio, [Mr. Wade,] who lives in a country where 



the people invest most of their gain in live-Block, 
lake liiH peculiar kind of property into the Terri- 
tory of Nebraska, and then turn upon ine and say 
you shall not take yi.'ur |iroperty there.' Shall he 
do this .simply because 1 chance to have invested 
the [irodueiH of my labrir in someiliing to which he 
has a prejudice.' He and his coristitueiils are pre- 
jtidiceu against slavery, and will not live in a coun- 
try where it exists. Suppose 1 and my constitu- 
ents were to take the same prejudice against hogs, 
and sheep, and cattle, anil say that we would not 
live in a country where they were permitted. Sup- 
pose that we, being a majority, should say to the 
people of Ohio, " You shall not drive your live- 
stock into the Territories ;" would we have a 
right to do it .' Would not the gentleman consider 
such a declaration an invasion of his constitutional 
privileges!' Whether deprived of his privilege to 
emigrate with his live-stock by the Territorial Le- 
gislature, or by the Federal autlK)riiy, would he 
not regard it an infraction of his rights as an 
American citizen.' 

Let me put another case. The Senator from 
Connecticut [Mr. S.mitii] comes from a country 
where they make clocks, and sometimes very good 
ones; but we happen, at the South, to have some 
prejudices against Yankee clocks. Sunjiose our 
people were the first to go into this Territory, 
could they say to the people of Connecticut, " You 
shall not bring your Yankee clocks here .'" Could 
he first half dozen, or fifty of us who might em- 
igrate from Mississippi or Alabama, undertake to 
exclude all New England simply on the clock 
question .' This Territory covers an area about 
seven times aslargeas the State of Virginia. Now, 
the question is, had the first half dozen southern- 
ers, who happened to squat on one corner of it, a 
right to say that in all future time, in no part of 
this vast domain, shall there ever be brought a 
Connecticut clock .' Would it not be monstrous? 
Would the people of Connecticut be willing to 
submit to it.' Certainly not, and why.' because 
a clock is property. It is something in which they 
invest the products of their labor — something 
against which they have no prejudice, but against 
which we have. 

Now, sir, I submit that if I, and my constituents, 
have no right to gratify our prejudices at the ex- 
pense of Connecticut and her clocks, then the Sen- 
ator and his constituents have no right to gratify 
theirs at the expense of Mississippi and her ne- 
groes, 

I will not pursue this branch of the subject 
further. It was not my intention, in the begin- 
ning, to make a speech, and I have to apologize to 
the Senate for having already consumed more 
time than I ought. 

I intend, Mr. President, to vote for this bill. 
But 1 must confess that the particular section un- 
der debate, and the one which has given rise to 
so much discussion, is not worded as I should 
have liked. It is not free from ambiguity;and, as 
I like directness in legislation, I would, if it had 
been left to me, have couched it in language so 
explicit that no one couid have mistaken it. It de- 
clares, as a consequence of former legi.'^lation, that 
the Missouri compromise is inoperative and void. 
I would have said in terms:- " tne Missouri com- 
promise is hereby repealed." But as the end is 
aftained, I will not chatTer as to the means by 
which we attain that end. 



LIBRPRY OF CONGRESS 



8 



The language employed by the distinguished 
author of this bill, and mover of the section now 
under consideration is, that the people of the Ter- 
ritory nuiy regulate their own domestic institu- 
tions for themselves, subject only to the restric- 
tions of the Constitution. I should have preferred 
a simple repeal of the Missouri restriction. That 
would have restored us to the position we had 
before the law was passed, and would have been 
free from ambiguity or circumlocution. But the 
language employed is not decidedly objectionable 
to me, and, 1 repeat, I will vote for the bill. 

By yielding the " right to regulate domesticinsti- 
tutions," I understand we yield the right simply to 
regulate, not to destroy. To regulate is one thing, 
to destroy is another, and a very dilVerent thing. 

Domestic institutions include, as I admit, the 
relation of husband and wife, parent and child, 
master and servant. But I deny that the right to 
regulate carries along with it the right to destroy. 
The right to regulate the relation between master 
and servant no more entitled the regulating power 
to destroy that relation, than does the power to 
regulate the relation between the husband and wife 
authorize the destruction of that relation. As well 
might the Territorial Legislature take a wife from 
her husband, under pretense of regulating their 
relations, as to take a servant from his master, 
under pretense of regulating that relation. This 
is my opinion, and 1 vote for the bill clothed in its 

f resent phraseology because this is my opinion. 
f I thought that, in voting for the bill as it now 
stands, I was conceding the right of the people in 
the territory, during their territorial existence, to 
exclude slavery, I would withhold my vote. 
That equality that exists among the States, and 
the people of the States, under the Constitution, 
is not taken away by any fair construction of the 
language employed in the bill. Senators, North 
and South, have spoken as if ihe bill conceded the 
right of tlie people in a. Territory to exclude 
slavery. I combat the idea. It leaves the ques- 
tion where I am quite willing it should be left — to 
the ultimate decision of the courts. It is purely a 
judicial question, and if Congress will refrain from 
intimating an o|iinion, I am willing that the Su- 
preme Court shall decide it. But, sir, 1 have too 
ofcen seen that Court sustaining the intentions of 
Congress, to risk a decision in my favor, after 
Congress has decided against me. The alien and 



sedition '"a" 011 "ssV 791 9 ^ ' Jr; 

all been , \So\., 

ill my opinion, because they were so, but because 
the Supreme Court, as a coordinate Department of 
the Government, was disinclined to clash with the 
other Departments. If this question is allowed to 
go before the Supreme Court, free from the influ- 
ence of a congressional pre-judgment, I v/ill abide , 
the result, though it beagainstme. If othergentle- 
men had intimated no opinion, I would have inti- 
mated none. But I am unwilling to see the weight 
of authority here thrown altogether on one side. 
For this reason I have spoken, and for this reason 
I call upon others who concur with me to speak. 

Mr. President, I leave this subject. I ought not 
to have said so much, and yet I know not how I 
could have said less. At best, 1 could not hope to 
throw additional light on a subject like this. It has 
been illumined by the philosophy of Webster, 
made brilliant by the eloquence of Clay, and consol- 
idated by the severest of all tests — Calhoun's logic. 
Still I was desirous of presenting some views of my 
own; and especially so, as I am advised that the 
Senator from Michigan is going to address the 
Senate. I know full well his pov/ers in debate; 
and I have not presented my remarks to provoke 
his criticism. But this 1 know, if they pass the 
ordeal of his investigation, no power on earth can 
siiake them. 

The Senator will do me the justice to believe 
that it gives me no pleasure to differ with him on 
this subject. Accustomed to regard him as the 
great father of the Democratic family, I dissent 
with misgivings and great pain from anything that 
he says. On this question I think he is wrong; 
but my mind is not sealed against conviction. I 
will listen to him, and if I find myself in error, I 
will confess it with more pleasure than I have had 
in expressing these views. It is honorable, at all 
times, to confess our faults, and to repair injuries 
when we are convinced. If I have been at fault, 
and being so, have done injustice to the Senator, I 
shall be glad to know it. I would surrender to any 
antagonist fairly entitled to a victoiy; but the age, 
experience, ability, and incorruptible integrity of 
the Senator, make him an antagonist to whom any 
man may surrender wiihout dishonor. He has 
only to convince me, and I surrender at discre- 
tion. 



Printed at the Congressional Globe Office. 



l!!r.:.?i<^o.,^Bss 



011897 791 



